X-Ray girl is back on TV in the UK

[Ashles]

Apparently Nina Demkina the Russian X-Ray girl is back on daytime TV again.

I missed her today, but she is on again tomorrow and I'm hoping to get it videoed. Should be interesting as tomorow they are apparently going to have some sceptics there.

It was on at 12:15 today ITV1 so probably same time thereabouts tomorrow.

[Operaider]

Is this the same one Randi talks about in Flim Flam?

[Azrael 5]

This girl only came to light last year I believe so it wont be.When This Morning says its having a sceptic on,it usually means Dr Chris or the weather presenter,lol.:(

[Ashles]

Sorry it's Natasha Demkina, not Nina.

This girl (http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#12)

[JimTheBrit]

I'll post an audio rip from both days on the board tomorrow. I was only keeping one eye on the broadcast this morning and haven't yet watched the video through but there was a fair amount of head shaking from the volunteers towards the end, I noticed. A bad sign for Ms Demkina?

French or Wiseman for the sceptic, I'd say. That's usually the case.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
I'll post an audio rip from both days on the board tomorrow. I was only keeping one eye on the broadcast this morning and haven't yet watched the video through but there was a fair amount of head shaking from the volunteers towards the end, I noticed. A bad sign for Ms Demkina?

French or Wiseman for the sceptic, I'd say. That's usually the case.
And not Denise robertson?! lol. Who couldnt be sceptical if her life depended on it!:D

[davidhorman]

I saw the whole thing. She bombed pretty badly - much less impressive than when she was on the show last year (?).

They showed a brief clip from a documentary, which showed her being tested by Richard Wiseman. She was in a room with several (seven?) blindfolded people, but the only dialogue was Wiseman saying "You got four, which means you missed it by one, but it's still an interesting result," or words to that effect.

David

[Azrael 5]

Which is exactly what happened today,except with a diferent sceptic! Getting four right two years running isnt bad ,surely?:)

[Azrael 5]

Im sure someone will do a better write up of this,but heres my effort.
First subject is correctly identified as having had broken bones in his neck(Natasha was told the ailment would be in the head area!! )
Second person was not so succesful,she claimed some kind of ailment in his stomach area,that he would be able to feel when he laid down.Despite the psychologist,strangely trying to make something fit,it was generally a miss)
Third person,a middle aged woman. Natasha crashed and burned here too I recall,failing to notice the woman had three kidneys!! (for some reason i guessed kidney problems,seeing as I cant find my car keys I guess It was a lucky guess!) As I said the psychologist seemed to be trying to make things fit,and was of the opinion that she had some kind of ability outside the norm.
Its vague,but I didnt tape it so Im relying on anecdotal evidence,lol
;)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Im sure someone will do a better write up of this,but heres my effort.
First subject is correctly identified as having had broken bones in his neck(Natasha was told the ailment would be in the head area!! )
Second person was not so succesful,she claimed some kind of ailment in his stomach area,that he would be able to feel when he laid down.Despite the psychologist,strangely trying to make something fit,it was generally a miss)
Third person,a middle aged woman. Natasha crashed and burned here too I recall,failing to notice the woman had three kidneys!! (for some reason i guessed kidney problems,seeing as I cant find my car keys I guess It was a lucky guess!) As I said the psychologist seemed to be trying to make things fit,and was of the opinion that she had some kind of ability outside the norm.
Its vague,but I didnt tape it so Im relying on anecdotal evidence,lol
;)

This girls claims she has x-ray vision?

And she failed to "see" a third kidney?

[Azrael 5]

Incredible,but true Drooper! Surely that should have ended the debate there and then! Sadly it didnt.;)

[Paul]

The Discovery Channel doc about Natasha is on in the UK at 21:00 on 30/09 and 02:00 on 01/10.

In the doc she goes to the US to be tested by CSICOP. Unfortunately, for her anyway, she fails to spot something even more obvious than a 3rd kidney. I won't say too much, because I don't want to spoil it for those that want to watch for themselves, but it seems to me that the main test was way too open to luck or guessing to be of any real value.

It also seems that she has now started taking donations from her legions of loyal disciples.

[Ashles]

but it seems to me that the main test was way too open to luck or guessing to be of any real value.

What the CSICOP test?

I thought they were supposed to be pretty tight in their testing.

Could it just have been badly edited?

[Paul]

The controls were tight enough, but the construction of the test seemed to give too much to Natasha.

Basically, they gave her a list, and documentation, of specific conditions and asked her to say which person in the group had each one and who had none. I believe there were only six conditions and one person with none, which doesn't seem very statistically significant to me.

I would like to see a test where at least ten people with very obvious conditions were lined up and the testee merely had to say what each one was. Something like amputation, joint replacement or gender reasignment should be pretty unmissable to anyone who can see into the human body.

[davidhorman]

I would like to see a test where at least ten people with very obvious conditions were lined up and the testee merely had to say what each one was. Something like amputation, joint replacement or gender reasignment should be pretty unmissable to anyone who can see into the human body.

Giving Natasha the list of ailments beforehand eliminates any subjectivity. Yes, joint replacement should be obvious to someone with X-Ray vision - but what if she says she just sees "something wrong" with a joint? Is that a hit? If it turned out the person had arthritis, is it still a hit?

Give her the ailments to match to the people and you know exactly the probability of succeeding by chance.

For those of us who won't get The Discovery Channel, can someone tell me what very obvious thing she failed to spot?

David

[TheBoyPaj]

This is "fruit and vegetables" girl again, isn't it?

She probably thought the person with the third kidney had just eaten a large aubergine for breakfast.

[Paul]

For those of us who won't get The Discovery Channel, can someone tell me what very obvious thing she failed to spot?
A metal plate in the head.

but what if she says she just sees "something wrong" with a joint? Is that a hit?

I would accept "his/her [joint] is made of metal" as a hit.

My idea would be to eliminate any uncertainty by having only one obvious condition per person. This should remove the type of problem you suggest.

[Lothian]

Given her consolation fee of 400 roubles is over half the 750 rouble average weekly wage in her home town I suppose she doesn’t really care what the experts think.

She has explained the fee was a means of funding her through medical college in Moscow which seems strange given the state pays her fees.

Paul. you say the controls were tight.

While the designed controls may have been tight I understand her (specifically prohibited) constant text messaging through out the testing would have invalidated her results even if she had been successful

[Paul]

Originally posted by Lothian While the designed controls may have been tight I understand her (specifically prohibited) constant text messaging through out the testing would have invalidated her results even if she had been successful

It certainly would, although I do not recall it being mentioned at all in the documentary. I may have to watch it again now.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Paul
It certainly would, although I do not recall it being mentioned at all in the documentary. I may have to watch it again now. Paul,

It might not have been in the Documentary. From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1312544,00.html) newspaper.

After four hours, Natasha had made her final judgment and the scientists convened to announce the results. Though she correctly identified four of the patients, she misdiagnosed three, including one who had a missing appendix. She had failed, the scientists declared. Natasha now says she was unhappy with how the test was carried out. "The atmosphere of the testing was unfriendly. The conditions I was looking for were in some cases dubious. Why is that if I get five out of seven I pass, but if I get four, I'm a total failure?" she says.

But the scientists who designed the experiment say a failure is a failure. So what is their explanation of what is going on?

"At best, she's done this a lot and she has a real expertise at being able to look at people and make reasonably accurate diagnoses. But at worst, there's something else going on," says Richard Wiseman, a professional magician turned psychologist and paranormal investigator at the University of Hertfordshire.

Prof Wiseman, who helped design the test, says that although they have no proof Natasha cheated, a lot of text messages were being sent between her and her companions during the test, something the scientists had expressly forbidden.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aaaaarrrggh! A member named Paul. That's a violation of Sooper Sekrit Rule X. Why didn't the member name filter catch that?

Welcome, Paul.

Carry on . . .

~~ Paul

[Paul]

Why thank you, Paul. Unfortunately I was in one of those 'really can't be bothered finding a unique yet cool-with-a-hint-of-sophistication usename' moods when I signed up.

~~Paul


Lothian,

Thanks, it seems that the doc was not very thorough, which is not really much of a surprise.

[Anders]

The problem is that not many people in Russia watch Discvery Channel, and our beloved Natascha are going to go back to her home towm, continue with her "diagnostics" deed, and so preventing or delaying people from seeking real medical care. And by that causing pain and possibly premature death for some unlucky people.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Aaaaarrrggh! A member named Paul. That's a violation of Sooper Sekrit Rule X. Why didn't the member name filter catch that?

Welcome, Paul.

Carry on . . .

~~ Paul
What, my member name is my own given name. I'm just to old to find witty member names funny, but I do find these funny: :j1: :j2:

[TheBoyPaj]

Come on, you lot. You can't expect a young girl to stop texting her mates for ten minutes, scientific test or no scientific test. That's like cutting off an arm, or something. It's inhumane.

After all, what if she doesn't find out that Ashley told Becky's mate that he sorta fancies her? That would be a disaaaaster!


(Grumble grumble, bloody kids today etc...)

[Paul]

Anyway, what's a girl from a supposedly poor part of a poor country doing with a multi band mobile phone?

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.


I wonder how the authorities will feel when hundreds of people turn up in Moscow at Natasha's medical school, so that a student can use her magic eyes to diagnose them?


this one's also funny: :cs:

just for you Anders: :vk:

[davidhorman]

I would accept "his/her [joint] is made of metal" as a hit.

My idea would be to eliminate any uncertainty by having only one obvious condition per person. This should remove the type of problem you suggest.

You might accept "his/her [joint] is made of metal". That's pretty succint. But someone else might accept "there's something wrong with this joint" or even "there's something wrong with a joint."

At worse, there's nothing to lose from giving Natasha a list of problems to match to patients, and everything to gain. It makes the results completely objective, leaving the subjectivity in the hands of the test subject - in short, she can blame no-one but herself.

For example, the people at the Fortean Times Message Board saw fit to ignore the pleas of the "target pool" crowd, and went ahead with a subjective testing procedure, which resulted in Lucianarchy claiming success where none was to be found, because he judged himself to have been right where others did not.

David

[Paul]

Originally posted by davidhorman
For example, the people at the Fortean Times Message Board saw fit to ignore the pleas of the "target pool" crowd, and went ahead with a subjective testing procedure, which resulted in Lucianarchy claiming success where none was to be found, because he judged himself to have been right where others did not.

Any test such as this should try to make the outcome as obvious as possible to eliminate this type of problem.

If, for instance, the rules stated that the subject was to describe, as fully and accurately as possible, the nature and location of each condition then the "a problem with a joint" response would be invalid.

My problem is that each time a test like this results in a score that could be chance or just a bad day for the subject it muddies the waters a bit more. This may encourage those who are undecided because "they didn't prove she was wrong", and this is a bad thing.

Why could Natasha not be presented with a selection of people and told that each one had a body part missing? All she would have to do is say which part is missing from which person, and with enough volunteers a definitive result could be achieved. To make it even easier it could be only limbs or digits that were missing and a chart used to mark the location to eliminate any miscommunication.

[skeptikat]

Originally posted by Paul


My problem is that each time a test like this results in a score that could be chance or just a bad day for the subject it muddies the waters a bit more. This may encourage those who are undecided because "they didn't prove she was wrong", and this is a bad thing.



It's not the job of the testers to prove her wrong. It's her job as the one making the claim to prove she can do what she says she can do. If they try to prove that she doesn't have the ability she claimes, then the testers are admitting that there is something there to begin with. I think it would be worse to report a finding that they could not prove she did not have the power. (if that makes sence, how do you disprove something that does not exist and what happens if you fail?)

[davidhorman]

If, for instance, the rules stated that the subject was to describe, as fully and accurately as possible, the nature and location of each condition then the "a problem with a joint" response would be invalid.

"fully and accurately is possible" is subjective. You would dismiss it as an invalid response, then the subject would run off and claim success because you were unreasonable with your criteria (cf the FTMB fiasco).

My problem is that each time a test like this results in a score that could be chance or just a bad day for the subject it muddies the waters a bit more. This may encourage those who are undecided because "they didn't prove she was wrong", and this is a bad thing.

How would you prove that Natasha can not, will not, and never has been able to see into someone's body? All you can objectively say at the end of a failed test is that they failed this one test. Or, as skepticat said:

how do you disprove something that does not exist

Next:

Why could Natasha not be presented with a selection of people and told that each one had a body part missing? All she would have to do is say which part is missing from which person, and with enough volunteers a definitive result could be achieved. To make it even easier it could be only limbs or digits that were missing and a chart used to mark the location to eliminate any miscommunication.

That is, in essence, what I've suggested - limiting the injuries to a pool of discrete, unique targets. Well, not quite; someone might have two fingers missing, and Natasha only identifies one - hit, or miss? If she knows that one person has two fingers missing beforehand, she's got no good excuse for failing to single them out.

David

[Paul]

skeptikat,

I entirely agree that it is Natasha's job to prove herself. What I am asking for is a test with less room for luck and a greater opportunity for a definitive answer, which would have a greater chance of swaying the undecided in the direction of reason. The “they didn't prove she was wrong� quote was supposed to be from the point of view of a believer.


davidhorman,

We may not believe in Natsha's 'powers', but many do. As skeptics it is our job to ask for evidence, we should start from a position of scepticism not incredulity.


How about this for a test:

At least ten volunteers, all with a below the knee amputation of the left leg. Natasha, or anyone else, is told that each person has one amputaion and she has to say which limb and above or below the knee or elbow. No room for error or misinterpretation and, the more volunteers the more significant the results.

[davidhorman]

We may not believe in Natsha's 'powers', but many do. As skeptics it is our job to ask for evidence, we should start from a position of scepticism not incredulity.

Where did I say I'm incredulous? In fact, from my posts, I don't think you could really tell if I believe in Natasha's powers or not (I don't). I'm just trying to suggest an objective approach to the testing.

Besides, as scientists, it shouldn't matter what position they start from, because hopefully they'll design an objective test that leaves as little wiggle-room as possible.

At least ten volunteers, all with a below the knee amputation of the left leg. Natasha, or anyone else, is told that each person has one amputaion and she has to say which limb and above or below the knee or elbow. No room for error or misinterpretation

Based on the activities of dowsers and other test subjects that we've all read about, they'd make room. For one thing, a testee could throw their toys out of the pram over the "trickery" being used, by using ten people with the same injury.

Give her a list of conditions and ask her to play match-up and you leave her with very few excuses if she doesn't pass (having previously agreed what constitutes a pass).

David

[The Don]

Natasha also has the added bonus of not being a native English speaker. No matter how inaccurate her diagnosis she could calim that it's the ineffectiveness of her translator (not understanding medical terms and so forth) which is to blame as is the fact that she is not medically trained and may herself not quite know the right words.

[Paul]

davidhorman,

I may have misinterpreted this statement:
How would you prove that Natasha can not, will not, and never has been able to see into someone's body?
Giving her a list of conditions would mean she started with an advantage, which would grow greater if she made a correct guess and would lead to no choice at the end.


The Don,

Why not give her a chart for each person and ask her to make an agreed mark? No medical knowledge is required, she either sees the missing limb or not, and the result would be unambiguous.

[davidhorman]

Giving her a list of conditions would mean she started with an advantage, which would grow greater if she made a correct guess and would lead to no choice at the end.

An advantage compared to what? She still has to beat the odds. You run that same risk with any test. It's probably slightly easier to calculate the odds in the which-limb-is-missing test (which would make a good test) because you're not dealing with permutations, but you can calculate them just the same and you set the pass conditions accordingly, negating any advantage.

David

[The Don]

Originally posted by Paul
The Don,

Why not give her a chart for each person and ask her to make an agreed mark? No medical knowledge is required, she either sees the missing limb or not, and the result would be unambiguous.
Which is why I am convinced that she almost certainly would not agree to such a protocol or that she would find some way to explain that she didn't understand the protocol.

[Paul]

Yes, she still has to beat the odds, but the smaller the data set the less significant the results. I guess what I am looking for is a result that means something to the layman. To a scientist or sceptic achieving no better than chance means something, but to a casual observer the fact that Natasha scored more than half might be significant. After all, most scientists and sceptics are not expecting Natasha to be able to demonstrate any paranormal ability, nor will they be the ones paying for her services.

Unfortunately, I agree with The Don that Natasha would most likely not participate in testing any more rigorous that she has already undertaken. It took hours to examine seven people when she knew what to look for and she was not happy with that test, so getting her to examine a significant number with no clues doesn’t seem probable.

[skeptikat]

I agree it would be nice to see some definite results. Even if it's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that she's a fraud the true believers will still believe. They'll just move on to another psycic. On the other hand it would be nice to sway even one more fence sitter over to the side of reason.

Psycics seem to be kinda like fads, they come and go leaving nothing more than an embarrased pause in the conversation when people bring them up years later.